Why the Postsecular Matters 8 Sept - final · 2017-12-05 · of postsecular studies: it has new...
Transcript of Why the Postsecular Matters 8 Sept - final · 2017-12-05 · of postsecular studies: it has new...
WhythePostsecularMatters:TheRiseoftheNovelandLiteraryStudies
Inthesummerof2016,theauthorsofthisessayco-directedafour-weekNEH
SummerSeminarforfaculty,titled“PostsecularStudiesandtheRiseoftheEnglishNovel,
1719-1897.”Thegermofourseminarwassimple.Wearescholarswhoworkon
eighteenth-andnineteenth-centuryBritishliterature,andweeditmonographseriesin
religion,literature,andpostsecularstudies.Inourexperience,scholarsinourfieldshave
yettotakeuptheinsightsofpostsecularscholarshipinmeaningfulways.Byandlarge,
theirstoriesstillcastthenovelasthehandmaidofsecularization,reworkingthewell-worn
plotofreligion’sdeclineratherthanofitscomplextransformationandshape-shifting
natureinmodernity.Wewantedtoleadaseminarthatgavefacultyachancetoread
postsecularscholarshipfrommanydisciplinesalongsidecanonicalandlesser-well-known
novelsfromRobinsonCrusoetoDracula,tuningourearstohearotherpossibilitiesabout
themigrationsofreligionandsecularisminthesenarratives.
Theterm“postsecular”continuestobeusedinavarietyofwaysthatareimportant
todistinguish.InPost-SecularPhilosophy(1998)PhilipBlondusedittodescribea“Radical
Orthodox”theologicalorientation.ForJürgenHabermasthepostsecularisapolitical
designationforaEuropeansocietynolongerhomogenouslysecularandgrapplingto
integratereligiouscitizensinthepublicsphere.Forscholarsinourdiscipline,itisoftena
literary-historicaltermborrowedfromJohnMcClure’sPartialFaiths:PostsecularFictionin
theAgeofPynchonandMorrison(2007),identifyingselectpost-WWIIliteraturemore
occupiedwithfaithandspiritualitythanthemodernistfictionthatprecededit.Inframing
ourseminar,weusedtheterm“postsecular”primarilyinafourthsense,asshorthandfor
2
multiformscholarshipgrowingoutoftwodecadesofthe“religiousturn”inthehumanities
ingeneral:whatweliketothinkofasthereligiousturn’scomingofage.
Welocatepostsecularstudies’centerofgravityinacriticalperspectivetowards
secularismandthesecularizationthesis.Sincethemid-twentiethcentury,sociology’s
secularizationthesishasbeenthedominantparadigmforunderstandingreligionin
modernity,assertingthatreligion’ssocialsignificancedeclinesasitsrolesdiminishdueto
modernsocialdifferentiation(institutions),societalization(thedeclineinlocal
orientation),andrationalization.Postsecularstudies,inourview,marksthecoming-of-age
ofthehumanities’“religiousturn”inthe1990sandearly2000s;itproceedsfromthe
wealthofrecenthistoricalscholarshipthatchallengesthepredictiveandexplanatoryforce
ofthesecularizationthesis,aswellasfromnewcriticalinterdisciplinaryworkinsociology,
anthropology,philosophy,andhistorythatshowsthedivisionbetweenthereligiousand
theseculartobepermeableandconstructed,partofwhatTalalAsadcallsanideologyof
secularisminmodernity.The“post”inpostseculardoesnotmeanthatthesecularis
somehowfinishedorthatapremodernreligiositylurksinthewings,butthatour
humanisticandsocialscienceinquireshavepassedthroughanunreflectiveassumptionof
secularizationtoacriticalawarenessofitsdependencyonaspecificproductionofthe
categoriesofthereligiousandthesecularinmodernity.Inthis“post”liesthegreatpromise
ofpostsecularstudies:ithasneweyestoseemodernmanifestationsoffaithand
secularismthatpreviousparadigmshadrenderedinvisible,anditisdevelopingnew
vocabulariesandframeworksforraisingpreviouslyunaskedquestionsaboutthecomplex
connectionsbetweenreligionandsecularisminmodernity.
3
Forbothofus,thepostsecularisatermatonceimperfectanduseful.Imperfect,
becauseofthedifferentmeaningsweattachtothewordandalsothescholarlyirritation
thatfrequentlyaccompaniestheoverused“post.”Thetermwasflaggedbysomeofthe
supportivereviewersandNEHstaffwhofundedourseminar:enthusiasticaboutits
content,theyworriedthatreferencetothepostsecularmightalienatecertainconstituents.
Intheend,wewereallowedtokeepthetitleonourwebsite,whiletheNEHpublicizedthe
programas“Religion,Secularism,andtheRiseoftheEnglishNovel,1719-1897.”Although
thecompromiseseemedreasonable,wehadsoughttoretainthetermpostsecularbecause
wefeltitcoulddousefulworkforourdisciplineandthehumanitiesasawhole,namely,
mainstreamingthemajorinsightsofthereligiousturndescribedintheprevious
paragraph,overcomingtheghettoizationofreligiously-relatedscholarship,andcatalyzing
aseachangeinthedisciplinenotunliketheoneworkedbyfeminismandtheNew
Historicisminpreviousdecades.Putanotherway,wethought,andstillthink,that
foregroundingthetermpostsecularenablesacriticalperspectiveonsecularismandan
awarenessofthepersistenceandtransformationofreligioninmodernity.Thiscanhelp
scholarsworkingonreligionmovebeyondtheseeminglyendlessneedforbasicrefutations
ofthesecularizationthesisandonwardtoconversationsthatcanhelphumanistsofmany
stripesbetterunderstandandspeaktocomplexiterationsofreligion,spirituality,and
secularismatworkintheliteraturesandcultureswestudy.
Inthediscussionthatfollows,weexplainwhywethinkthepostsecularmatters,for
literarystudiesingeneralandforourstoriesofthenovelinparticular.Aswedoso,we
drawheavilyonourexperienceoftheseminar:ourpreparationsforit,theastuteand
generouscontributionsoftheparticipants,thegraciouswisdomofourfourguestspeakers,
4
thepointsemergingfromthelargebodyoftransformationalmaterialweread,andthe
intellectuallifeofourgroupoverfourweeksinIowa.Thelastoftheseisprobablythemost
difficultexperiencetoconveyhere,buttheimportanceofcommunalactivityfor
postsecularstudiesissomethingthatwewanttoinsistonandwillreturntolaterinthis
essay.
Onereasonweseethepostsecularassopotentiallygenerativeforliterarystudiesis
itscapacitytopromptashift,change,expansion,andre-arrangementofwhatweread.The
beliefthattheriseofthenovelinEnglandmarksthearrivalofthesecularissocommon,so
pervasive,andsowidespread,thatitisdifficulttoimagineotherwaysofconceivingthe
form.Therehave,ofcourse,beenmultipleattemptstonarratetheriseofthenovel
differentlythanIanWattdidinhis1957book,butinnearlyeveryinstance,thesubsequent
accountshavefoundnomoreroomforreligion.1Ourinterestinthepostsecularisnot,tobe
clear,anattempttoreplaceonemonolithicidea(thesecular)withanother(thereligious),
butrathertoacknowledgeandopenupthecreativespaceforthinkingthatemergeswhen
difficultideasanddisciplinarymodesofthoughtareallowedtocross-pollinate.
Postsecularism’sproclivityforinterdisciplinaryreadingisnotonlygenerative,then,but
necessary,too.Oncewerecognizethattherelationbetweenthesecularandthereligious—
mostoftenaclearlyseparatedhierarchy—helpsconfigurethehabitsandpracticesof
literarycriticismasadiscipline,wecanseewhyweneedtoreadacrossestablished
frameworksofknowledge.Theinterdisciplinarygroundsofthesecularizationthesisandof
thethinkerswhochallengeandreviseitmeanwereadsociology,anthropology,
philosophy,andhistory,tounderstandtheircritiquesandgrasphowtheymighttranslate
into,resonatewith,orinspirerelatedreconsiderationsinourfield.
5
Enthusiasmforinterdisciplinaryreadingisnotnew,andweacknowledgethe
myriadofothercontextsandargumentsputforwardovertheyearsinfavorofreading
acrossandbetweendisciplines.Andweacknowledgetoothat,asothershavepointedout,
interdisciplinaryreadingbringswithitsubstantialpracticaldifficulties.Beingperpetually
confrontedbydifferentassumptionsandframesofreferencecanbediscomforting,andwe
sympathizewiththosemomentsinwhichparticipantsintheseminarvoicedalevelof
disquietwithaparticularpieceofreading.Whydoesthehistorianneedsomanyexamples?
Whydoesthetheologianseemsoconcernedwithanapparentlyminorpointofdoctrine?
Whydoesthesociologistrushtoquantifyandchartcategoriesofthought?Whydoes
analyticphilosophyseemsoresistanttotheambiguityoftheliterarytext?Weappreciate
thedangerofsimplificationthatthesecharacterizationsconnote,andacceptthatthebest
scholarship,inmultipledisciplines,haslongshownatleastsomeawarenessofreading
outsideone’simmediatesphereofknowledge.Butpostsecularthinkingseemsto
encourageagreaterlevelofinterdisciplinaritythaniscommontomanyareasofliterary
studies,atleastwhenitcomestotheriseofthenovel.Thishasbeenourimpressionaswe
listenedtoparticipants(andothercolleagueswholookedatourreadinglist)commenton
howdifferentsomuchofoursyllabuswasfromthesortofreadingtypicallydoneinthe
discipline.Theirremarksonthisscoreledtointernalreflection,frombothofus,abouthow
andwhyourthinkingontherelationbetweenthereligiousandsecularhasdrawnso
heavilyonmaterialfromoutsideliterarystudies.
CharlesTaylor’sASecularAgewasanimportanttextforusduringtheseminar,and
webenefitedfromthehelpofoneofourguestspeakers,ColinJager,inhelpingusattendto
therhetoricalformsinTaylor’swork.Thematicallyandformally,ASecularAgeepitomizes
6
theinterdisciplinarypromiscuityweassociatewiththepostsecular.Perhapsthisis
unsurprisinggivenTaylor’sfocusonnarrative—whichheinsists“isnotanoptional
extra”—andhisdesiretorelaymanyofitsdifferentstrands:“Thestoryofwhathappened
inthesecularizationofWesternChristendomissobroad,andsomulti-faceted,thatone
couldwriteseveralbooksthislengthandstillnotdojusticetoit.”2ForsomeofTaylor’s
detractors,theinterdisciplinarybreadthofhisworkisaproblem,anditisnotuncommon
toheareventhosewhoaresympathetictoTaylor’sprojectjoiningthechorusofcomplaints
aboutalackofdisciplinaryorhistoricalnuance.Thereisarelatedconcern,articulated
morethanonceduringourseminardiscussions,thathiscommitmenttonarrativemight
provebothlimitingandtotalizing.Butwhilewerecognizetheneedforincredulitytowards
anymeta-narrativewithanomniscientambition,narrativedoesnothavetobeunderstood
inthismanner.Onourreading,theformnarrativetakesinthenovel—certainlyinthe
westerntraditionbutalsoelsewhere,acrosstime,place,andsubgenre—canandfrequently
doesmodelamoreopen-endedmodeofconversation,withmultiplecharacters,plot
threads,andreaderscreatingspacefordifferentinterpretations.Wewishtoadvancea
similarclaimforTaylor’swork.ForallthegapsandweaknessesandbiasesofASecular
Age,thestoryittellsabouttherelationshipbetweenreligionandthesecularisonethathas
promptedandaccommodatedscholarlyresponsesfromahugearrayofdisciplines.
Taylorisnotaloneinwantingtotellamorecomplexstoryaboutreligionandthe
secular.Anotherformativetextforourseminar,asforourpostsecularsensibilitymore
broadly,wasJacquesDerrida’sessay,“FaithandKnowledge:TheTwoSourcesof‘Religion’
attheLimitsofReasonAlone.”AlthoughDerrida’smethodologicalstartingpointis
significantlydifferentthanTaylor’s,thetwoscholarsshareadesiretotracetheinvolved
7
historicalandtextualthreadsbetweenfaithandknowledgeandtoquerytheextentoftheir
separation.Inponderingthisrelation,Derridadistinguishesbetweentwokindsoffaithin
modernity.ThefirstisaKantian,rationalizingone,whichisalwaystemptedtocashout
faithintermsofknowledgeandwhich,byvirtueofthisinternalcontradiction,is“bound”to
reason“bythebandoftheiropposition.”3Thesecondsortoffaith,Derridawrites,is
alignedwithprayerandsacrificeratherthanphilosophy.Itresiststhecomfortsof
abstraction,mastery,andthemechanismsofthelaw,passingthroughthemwithout
stoppingatmiragesofcertainty,ontowardswhathecallsthe“desertinthedesert,”where
theaporiasoflawandknowledgeappear,andwherebeliefandtheexperienceofthe
sacrednessoftheothermighttakeplace.4Inotherwords,theuncertaintyofthedesertin
thedesertallowsforthepossibilityoffaiththatremainsfaithandisnotsubsumedinto
knowledge.Alterity,freedom,andresponsibilityaremadepossiblebyfaith’suncertainties
andare,forDerrida,sincehisearliestworks,rootedinthenatureoflanguage.Buildingon
Saussure’snotionofthedifferentialnatureofthesign,Derrida’s1968essay“Différance”
showsthatthoughtandourperceptionofrealityaregovernedbythesamestructure:the
workofdifférancethatproducespresenceasaneffectoftemporalandspatialdisplacement
whichleavesaperpetualtraceofalterityoneachideaandconcept.Thisdoesnotmeanthat
thereisnoknowledgeormeaning,butthatthereisnoknowledgeormeaninginisolation.
Knowledge,likelanguage,isrelational,basedinconstructive,interpretiveactsofbelief.
Re-reading“Différance”today,wecanseewhy,thirtyyearslater,Derridawasstillwriting
in“FaithandKnowledge”about“theactoffaithintheappealtofaiththatinhabitseveryact
oflanguageandeveryaddresstotheother.”5Faith,likerelationality,isforDerridainherent
inthelinguisticcondition.
8
Overturningbinariesisnotthesameasclaimingthatallperspectivesarethesame,
however,andwejoinDerridaandTaylorinwrestlingwiththedifficultyofwritingand
talkinginawaythataccommodatesperspectivesorienteddifferentlytowardsfaithand
knowledge.Oneofourparticipantspromptedustothinkabouttheimportanceoftable
hospitalityinDerrida’sexplorations,andtheintuitionprovedfruitfulforourseminar.The
JewishandChristiancontextsofthisconceit—asharedinsistencethatofferinghospitality
toastranger,likeAbrahamwiththeangels,istheparadigmaticmomentofopennesstothe
other,bothhumananddivine—leadustounderstandingwhythepostsecular,more
adeptlythannarrower,secularconstructions,encouragestheinterdisciplinaryreadingthat
wefindsohelpfulforourthinkingaboutthenovel.Acrossouracademiccareerswehave
experiencedsomesecularscholarlyconversationstobeasinhospitabletoreligious
interlocutorsasreligiousconversationscanbetosecularandskepticalvoices,andsoitis
noaccidentthatweimagineandexperiencethepostsecularasuniquelyconcernedwith
hostinglong,investedconversationsamongspeakersthathaveyettoregularlysharea
tabletogether.JudaismandChristianitymaynotbeuniqueinhelpingustosetthistable:
AmandaAndersonarguesforthecosmopolitanambitionofsecularmodernity,and
HabermasdrawsonarelatedcommitmenttoEnlightenmentvalueswhenspeakingof
postsecularEuropeasacontextinwhichsecularcitizenscometorecognizetheresources
andintuitionsreligiouscitizenscanoffertodealwithsociety’smostcontentiousdivisions.
Nevertheless,thelong-standingcommitmentofthethreeAbrahamicreligionstohosting
theotherisakeyreasonwhythepostsecularenablesmorediverseconversationsin
literarystudy,providingdeep,fertilesoilinwhicharicher,morebiodiverse
interdisciplinaritycanflourish.
9
Itseemstousthatinthesecularcontextsinwhichwework,postsecularstudies
specificallyopensupthereadingofreligiousandtheologicaltexts,aswellasreligiousways
ofreading,bywhichwemeanreadingmarkedbyoneormoreaspectsofafaithtradition—
e.g.itslanguage,rituals,orpriorities.Evenifweconsiderliterarystudiesasecularizedsort
ofreligiousreading,asmanyhavedone,theseexplicitlyreligiousreadingpracticesand
sensibilitiesare,asMichaelWarnerpointsoutin“UncriticalReading,”oftenneglectedin
literarystudies.Yettheyoverlapagreatdealwiththeconcernsofliteraryscholars.In
seekingtoresurrectthereadingofreligion—thatis,readingwithagreateropennessto
theologicalvocabularyandgrammar—weareawarethatnoteveryonewillshareour
enthusiasm.Someofourpeersremainreluctanttotalkaboutreligioninliterarystudies,
seeminglyshyofdoinganythingtoencourageadogmatheyconsidertobeintellectually
unyieldingandclosedtonewideas.Thereishistoricalevidence,ofcourse,tosupportthis
nervousness,andweacknowledgethosedisturbinginstanceswherethelanguageofclosed
thinkingaboutfaithhasgivenrisetoviolence.Butthesamechargecanbebroughtagainst
anyotherdiscourseorbodyofthought,notleastpoliticalsecularisminthetwentieth
century.Thesignaturemovementofsecularistthinkingsincetheearlymodernwarsof
religionhasbeentoequateviolencewithreligiousviolence,andthustorendersecularist
violenceunmarkedandinvisible,andthereforeunchecked.Moreover,wecanthinkof
numerouscounter-examples,wherebelieversfromacrossthereligiousspectrumhave
privilegedfreedomandfoundintheirbeliefsasourceforpositivesocialtransformation
andactsofradicalhospitality.
Partofthereasonwhytheinterpretativeworkundertakenbythosewhoidentifyas
believerscanresultinsuchdifferentoutcomesisthatthelifeoffaith,individuallyand
10
communally,isinevitablyentangledwiththepoliticsofpowerandthevariousformsof
injusticeandwrongdoingthatmarallofourattemptstoliveintheworld.This
entanglement,whichcanbethoughtaboutassinbutisperhapsbetterunderstoodasthe
“fortunate”falldescribedinParadiseLost,afallintobrokennessthatnonethelesssetsout
forhealinginhope,isnotspecifictoreligiousbelievers:itispartofwhatitmeanstobe
humanandareasonwhytheologicallanguage,likeallotherhumanknowledge,needsto
comefromapositionofepistemologicalhumility.Contrarytowhatmanypeoplethink,the
workofreligion,atleastoftheChristiantraditionwithwhichwearemostfamiliar,isto
explorefaithinallitsworldlyentanglementsratherthanalwaysseekingtoextricateitself
fromthoseentanglements.Whatwevalueaboutthepostsecular,then,isitsinsistenceon
thinkingaboutreligionalongsideandwithinthesecular:ratherthanseekingorexcludinga
reifiedandnarrowaccountoftranscendence,thepostsecularadmitsthereadingof
religiousandtheologicaltextsaspartoftheworldthatthemodernacademyseeksto
understand.Thisopensdoors,previouslylocked,towholenewintellectualworlds.
Byresistingtheconfinedspacethatsecularthoughtsooftenleavesforreligion,
postsecularstudiesinvitesustoexaminetheologicaltextsandminetheirtheoretical
possibilities.Oneoftheexampleswespenttimeconsideringduringourseminarwasthe
conceptofprovidence,atheologicaldoctrinethatisfrequentlyimpoverishedbythose
literaryhistorieswhichpresumethattheemergenceofthenovelinauguratesanemphasis
onagencyand/orthematerialworldatoddswitholdernotionsofGod’sactioninthe
world.Manyofthemostbrilliantandbestknowntheoristsofthenovel—GeorgLukács,Ian
Watt,FrederickJameson—workwithaconstrictedunderstandingofprovidence,and
GeorgeLevineishardlyalonewhenheseestheVictoriannovel’semphasisoncapital
11
putting“pressureontheprovidencenarrativesbequeathedtoitbyChristianity.”6The
problemwithsuchreadingsisthatprovidenceismoresubtleandwide-rangingthanthe
harshCalvinisticdeterminismthatCharlesDickensembodiesinLittleDorritthroughthe
characterofMrsClennam.Dickens’snovelwasoneofthetextsforourseminar,andour
livelydiscussionofitincludedaconsiderationofprovidencethatwentmuchfurtherthan
MrsClennam’sinterestinthedeterminationoftheelectandthedamned.Christian
theologyseesprovidencemorecomprehensively,fromtalkofhowGodmakesspacefor
othersincreationtotheroleoftheHolySpiritandthetransformationalworkofGodand
God’speopleinsociety.Equippedwiththisextensivegrammarofthought,weseehowthe
concernsofanarrayofnovelsintheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturies—concernswith
thequotidian,withpurpose,andwiththematerialworld,totakejustafewexamples—are
compatiblewithratherthanantagonistictoreadingsthattakeseriouslytheongoing
vitalityofreligiousthought.
Recognisingthisopensuptheconsiderabletheologicalcomplexityandambiguityin
theendingtoLittleDorrit,whichdescribesAmyandArthur“[going]quietlydownintothe
roaringstreets,inseparableandblessed;andastheypassedalonginsunshineandinshade,
thenoisyandtheeager,andthearrogantandthefrowardandthevain,fretted,andchafed,
andmadetheirusualuproar.”7FivetimesinthefinaltwoparagraphsDickensinsiststhat
thecouple“wentdown,”andinonereadingthisgoingdownisjustasimpleandsomber
descentfromthesacramentalspaceandtimeoftheirweddinginthechurch,underthe
stained-glassimageofChrist.Butbeforetheydescend,Dickenshasthepairpausefora
momentonthestepsoftheportico,“lookingatthefreshperspectiveofthestreetinthe
autumnmorningsun’sbrightrays.”8Wemightthinkofthispauseaspregnantand
12
postsecular,creatinga“freshperspective”thatcanacknowledgeevenslantedautumn
sunshineasbright,thatunderstandsgoingdownintothedailylaborsofmotherhoodand
neighborlycareasradicallyparticipatinginChrist’skenosisandenfleshing,intheHoly
Spirit’songoingworkinformingandgivinglifetothecreation.Thinkinginthiswaygives
usthemeansofovercomingapresumedoppositionbetweendivineandhumanagency,as
wellasgivingustractioninpushingbackagainstLevine’sinsistencethatthequotidian
detailofthenovel,howeverreligiousitscontents,stacksitsdeckinfavorofthesecular.To
denythepossibilityofthismorepositivereadingistonarrowtheChristianvalencesofthe
noveltoonegativelyforourtastes.
ProvidenceisalsoacentralthemeinthewritingofGeorgeMacDonald,anotherof
ournovelistsduringtheseminar.Throughouthisfiction,thecommitmenttoGod’s
mysteriousactivityinandthroughcreationendowsalleventswithadivinepurposethat
eschewseasyanswers,registersthecontributionofallcreatures,andremainsopento
differentinterpretations.WhilethewritingsofanexplicitlyChristianauthorsuchas
MacDonaldmayseemanall-too-convenientsiteforthinkingaboutpostsecularstudiesin
thenovel,wethinkthepostsecularopensupmultipleinterpretativepossibilitiesacrossthe
rangeofnovelsweworkwith.ThisincludesPhantastes,whichishardlyastraightforward
religioustext:someofMacDonald’sinitialreaderswereunsurewhattomakeofthe
theologicalimplicationsofhiswork,andmanyofourparticipantshadasimilarreaction,
delightinginthefreshnessofhiswritingstylebutfindingithardtomakesenseofthe
novel’simaginativeexplorationsthroughfamiliarcriticallenses.Bringingtheconceptual
frameworkofthepostseculartobearonMacDonald’sfantasticfictiondoesnotoffereasy
answersbutitdoesprovebeneficial,notleastinensuringthatwedonotframeonly
13
questionsthatisolatethefantasticfromtheaffairsofthisworld.HowdoesMacDonalduse
fantasyinthenoveltoreconfiguretherelationshipbetweenthereligiousandthesecularas
itwasconceivedinhisday?Intheheydayoffictionalrealism,whydoeshefindfantasy
suchanappealingvenueforexpressingsomethingcrucialabouttherealityofreligious
experience?
AsNovalisobservesinaquotationthatMacDonaldusesasanepigraphfor
Phantastes,a“fairy-storyislikeavisionwithoutcoherence.Anensembleofwonderful
thingsandevents.”Ratherthanseekingescapefromtheworldthatweknow,these
“wonderfulthingsandevents”reorientourcustomaryperceptionsoftheworldweinhabit
andhelpusglimpsecreation’seschatologicalgoal.InMacDonald’shands,thefairy-taleand
thefantasticcommunicateacrucialdimensionofreligiousexperience,perhapsonethat
MacDonaldisespeciallyconcernedtoreconfigure:anexperienceofopennesstoa
sometimesinscrutablealterity(“avisionwithoutcoherence”)andofwonder,thatis,the
capacitytoexperiencereal“thingsandevents”aswonders.Religion,orperhapsspiritual
experience,inMacDonald’shands,isajourney,asensibilityconnectingchildhood,
maturity,andoldage,aprocessoflearningandgrowth,amodeofengagementwithothers
andtheworldthatseemsnecessarilytoentailmomentsofbothauthenticityandofself-
deception.AswesawinourseminardiscussionofPhantastes,MacDonald’stheology
evokesavarietyofresponses:fascinationwithhisperspectiveonsuffering,confusionand
disagreementabouthisunderstandingofagency,interestinhisviewoftheimagination,
andquestionsaboutthegenderpoliticsofhistext.Butthemorebasicpointwewishto
emphasisehereisthathisuseofthefantastic—andthereligiousasreconfiguredthrough
thefantastic—mapsontothisworldratherthanseekingescapefromit.Recognisingthisis
14
thekeytointegratingthefantasygenreintoourbroaderaccountsofthenovel,dislodging
thedominancesofrequentlyaccordedtorealismandhelpingusseeagreaterpluralityof
waysinwhichnovelistsimaginetheworld.
Thepostsecularhelpsustoheartherumblingsofreligion,secularityandmodernity
inmorefamiliarspheres,too,spheresthatarenolessprovidentialfortheirfamiliarityand
whichcontinuetomediateacomplexunderstandingoftheinteractionbetweendivineand
humanagency.RobinsonCrusoewasthefirstnovelweturnedtoduringourseminar,and
oureffortstodrawoutitstheologicalnuancesandindebtednesstotheBiblewenthandin
handwithattentiontothelasthalfcenturyofeconomicandpostcolonialthinkingonthe
novel.WhereasIanWattsoughttopositionthenovel’smanifestspiritualandtheological
contentasalosingcontestantinthebattlewithsecularity,weseeinitamorecomplexand
fluidrelationamongreligion,secularity,andmodernity,onethatdoesnotalwayspit
religionandsecularityagainstoneanother.Thisisnottosaythatpersonalreligiousbelief
isleftuncontestedinDefoe’snovel.Thekeysceneforusonthisheadistheoneinwhich
FridayposesaseriesoftheologicalquestionstoRobinsonconcerningtheproblemofevil
andGod’sprovidentialcare:“ifGodmuchstrong,muchmightastheDevil,whyGodnokill
theDevil,somakehimnomoredowicked?”9ThisquestionbringsRobinsonupshort,
becausethroughouthisadventuresheassumespreciselythatGodispunishinghimforhis
wickedness,andintherun-uptothisdiscussionwithFriday,moreover,thatGodwould
havehimkillthecannibalstomakethem“nomoredowicked.”Robinsonthusliterally
cannotfathomwhyhisall-powerfulChristianGodallowstheDeviltoexist.Butinthe
courseoftheirdialogue,miraculously,and“mightyaffectionately,”Fridaycan:“soyou,I,
Devil,allwicked,allpreserve,repent,Godpardonall.”10Quitespecifically,Fridayusesthe
15
deeplogicofthisChristianGod’sredemptivelovetoimaginetheapokatastasispanton,the
salvationofthewickedandevenofthedevil.Inwhatmightmorefrequentlybeinterpreted
asaflattermomentofreligiousindoctrinationandcolonization,Fridaypowerfullyif
unwittinglyexposes,intheveryheartofthenovel,thegapingchasmbetweenRobinson’s
unexaminedassumptionsaboutGodandtheChristianGod’sapparentpatiencewithevil,
betweenGod’sactionsintheworldandtheviolenceRobinsonwouldcommitinGod’s
name.
Althoughtheproblemofevilhasalonghistoryofreflectionwithinfaith
communities,inthiscaseitfallstoanoutsider—Friday—toputhisfingeronthedifficult
question.Thecontributionofthereligiousoutlierisnotasignofsecularization,however,
andinapostsecularspiritwemightreadthescenemoregenerouslyasoneofmutual
hospitalityanditsoutcomes.Friday’squestionsformthebasisofthreehappyyearsof
companionshipandconversation,inwhichtheSavageissaidtobecomea“good
Christian.”11Thislatterdevelopmentraisesthequestionofwhetherthesamecanbesaidof
RobinsonandwhetherheshouldbeFriday’sspiritualjudge,andthequestiondoesnotgo
awayasthetwoofthemcontinuetotalkabouttheWordofGod.Furthermore,thefactthat
FridayisanativeratherthanaEuropeanmodernandthatRobinson’s(andDefoe’s)
religiousbeliefsaboutprovidencearethemselvesinflectedbymodernitymakeitclearthat
secularismisnottheonlysourceforthinkingcriticallyaboutbelief.Norisitthecasethat
Fridayrevealshowtheoutsidercanalwaysseemoreclearlywhatthebelievercannot.
Instead,Friday’scontributionsuggeststhatthebestsortoftheologicalthoughtalways
proceedsindialogue.ThereisaparallelherewithMikhailBakhtin’saccountinTheDialogic
Imaginationoftheminglingofvoicesthatmarkstheemergenceofthenovelforminthe
16
modernworld.Itisnoaccident,wethink,thatBakhtinturnedtoDostoevsky,anavowedly
Christiannovelist,toillustratehisaccountofthenovel,andwesharetheperspectiveof
thosecontributorstothecollectionBakhtinandReligion:AFeelingforFaith,who,
accordingtotheeditors,seeBakhtin“asdeeplyimmersedwithinthetraditionofChristian
thought.”12ReadingBakhtininthiswayrevealshowthedialogicemphasishesawinthe
emergenceoftheeighteenth-andnineteenth-centurynovelisrootedinthemulti-voiced
narrativesoftheJudaeo-Christianscripturesasmuchasitisinthepluralityofmodernity,
andcanneverbefullydivorcedfromareligioussenseofsacredorliturgicaldialoguewith
theotherasanactoffaith.ForallBakhtin’sinterestinthemodernconditionsthat
influencetheformofthenovel,thereisinhisworkacorrespondingrecognitionofthe
continuitywithanearlierimpulsethatemanatesfromareligiousviewoflanguage:“The
developmentofthenovelisafunctionofthedeepeningofdialogicessence.”13This
amountstoaverydifferenthistoryofthenovelthantheonegiventousbyFrederic
Jameson,whoseesinthe“alreadysecular‘spiritualautobiography’ofDefoe”aformin
which“religiousinfluenceisitselfamereexternalandenablingcondition.”14
WeareanxiousnottorepeatRobinson’scolonialmindsetbyexploringtheformal
qualitiesofthenovelanddeclaringthetreasureswefindtheretobethepropertyof
Christianity.ThoughweseeatheologicalhistoryintheconceptofdialogismthatBakhtin
findsinthenovel,itdoesnotfollowthatthelanguageofthedialogicbelongsonlytothose
whoseethemselvesaspartofacommunityoffaith.Thedilemmaofknowinghowtotalk
aboutreligiousinfluenceswithoutclosingdowndiscussionormarginalizingother
contributionsisonethatrecursregularlyinourreflectionsonthepostsecular:howdowe
describenewdiscoveriesinourthinkingaboutthereligiousand/orsecularwhilstavoiding
17
triumphalismandtheexploitationthatremainssuchaproblemforDefoe?Thisisa
questionwithimplicationsthatextendbeyondourthinkingaboutthenovel,andthe
broaderhermeneuticalconcernisonethatBrunoLatourtouchesonin“WhyHasCritique
RunoutofSteam?”whenheconsidersthedominantmodeofreadinginthehumanitiesand
querieswhetherweshouldadd“freshruinstofieldsofruins”throughourattachmentto
critique.15Latourdescribescritiqueasamodeofintepretationthatseekstogetbehindor
beneathappearancesanddemystifytheideologyoftexts.Theriskwithreadinginthisway
isthatwepresumeweare,inLatour’swords,“alwaysright!Whennaïvebelieversare
clingingforcefullytotheirobjects…youcanturnallofthoseattachmentsintosomany
fetishesandhumiliateallthebelieversbyshowingthatitisnothingbuttheirown
projection,thatyou,yesyoualonecansee.”16
Latour’sinterrogationofhisownreadingpracticeispartofahermeneuticalturn
sometimesreferredtoasthepostcritical.Whilealternativestothedominanthermeneutic
practicedinliterarystudieshaverecentlybeendesignatedinallsortsofways(including
the“surfacereading”proposedbyStephenBestandSharonMarcus),thetermpostcritical
insiststhatweexploretheseoptionswithongoingreferencetothepracticeofcritique.17
ThekeythinkerforushereisRitaFelski,whosebookTheLimitsofCritique(2015)makesit
clearthatitisourexcessiverelianceoncritique,ratherthancritiqueperse,thatisthe
problem:“Thatcritiquehasmadecertainthingspossibleisnotindoubt.Whatisalso
increasinglyevident,however,isthatithassidelinedotherintellectual,aesthetic,and
politicalpossibilites—onesthatarejustasvitaltotheflourishingofnewfieldsof
knowledgeasolderones.”18Whilethepracticeofcritiquehasoftencentredonmattersof
economics,race,andgender,thosewhoareinterestedinreligioncaneasilyfind
18
themselvesperformingthesamesortofreading,“asthecriticscanspageorscreenfor
signsoffailedrepressionanddemonstratesthatatextisnotincommandofitsown
rhetoric.”19Forapostsecularscholarofthenovel,thepostcriticalissuesacalltoread
differentlywithouteitherleavingcritiquebehindaltogetherorfallingintothetrapof
critiquingcritiqueandreinstatingtheverymodeofreadingwehavejustbeencomplaining
about.
Fromourvantagepoints,thepostsecularisoneparticular,potentversionofthe
postcritical,andthepostcriticalandpostseculararepotentiallygreatallies,especiallyifwe
worktoarticulatetheircommongroundanddifferences.Thepostcriticaloftenborrowsthe
languageofenchantment,immersion,andsuspensionofdisbelief.Whilethismightseem
promisingforapostsecularcritic,suchlanguagesometimesservesmerelytoquarantine
andevenneutralizetheexperienceofbeliefinasafelysecular,literary,evenvirtual
environment.Sucharecognitioncanpromptustoreflectontheimportantdifferences
betweenthetwomodesofenchantment,andtoconsiderthesignificanceoftheextra-
virtualopennessofreligiousandspiritualexperience,ofwhatitmeanstosuspendone’s
disbeliefinwaysthatarenotonlytemporaryorprovisional.
Withoutsuchaconversationwiththepostsecular,thepostcriticalrunstheriskof
reinscribingthesecular/religiousbinarythatwe’vebeentroublingfortwentyyearsnow.
WhilewegreatlyadmireTheLimitsofCritique,sharingmanyofitsconvictionsandfinding
initspagesaconsiderableamountofspaceforreligiousreflection,wearestruckbythose
momentsinwhichthereligiouslanguageofFelski’sbookisfilteredthroughasecularlens.
Insuchpassages,therhetoriccondemnsthehermeneuticsofsuspicionasanascetical,
cultishpractice,completewithitsowncreeds,rituals,andmodesofbelief,andproclaims
19
itsowngoodnews:thatofamorerational,secularliteraryfaith.Thispatternofparadigm-
shiftingasakindofritualofre-secularizationhasbeeninevidencesincetheearliestdays
oftheprofessionalstudyofEnglish,whentheamateur’sloveofliteraturewascastinterms
ofhazyenthusiasmandabandonedinfavorofmorerigorous,secular,serious,objective
formsofknowledge,andsubsequentshiftstendtopaintthepreviousparadigmas
excessivelynaïveandinsufficientlyconcreteorcritical.20Lookingbackonprevious
paradigmshiftsinourprofession,wecanpredictwhatboththepostcriticalandthe
postsecularwillturninto,iftheyamountonlytomoreritualsofourre-secularization:the
nextcritical“-ism,”eventuallyoverthrowninthenameofamorecertainsecular
knowledge.Whatwedon’tknowyetiswhatitwouldlookliketoremainwithour
uncertainty,torefusetoreinscribethesecular/religiousdivide,andtosaytoourselvesthat
thisconditionofbelievinginthemidstofimperfectknowledgeisthehuman,linguistic
conditionofbeingintheworld,theconditionofmaking-meaningandofwhatmightbe
sharedinadeepandgenuinepluralism.This,byourlights,isamorepromising,rightly
postsecularversionofthepostcritical.Fromwithinsuchapostsecularconversation,we
mightbegintoglimpseascholarlycultureinwhichspiritual,religiousexperiencesofhope,
belief,love,andlongingarenotroutinelydismissedorsecularized.
Thereareoccasionswhenthepostcriticalsharessuchavantage,aswhenFelski
questionsthenarrativeofmodernityasaone-wayslideintodisenchantment:
Itisnotjustthatcritiquehasfailedtoeradicatethedesireforthesacredand
torootoutmagical,mystical,andmythologicalthinking,whichflourishin
botholdandnewguises.Wemightalsoconsiderthatcriticalthinking
20
conjuresupitsownformsofenchantment;thefaithincritiqueisno
different,incertainrespects,fromotherformsoffaith.…
Thatcritiquehasitssacredtexts,ritesofpassage,andarticlesoffaith
isnotadeplorablelackorshamefulfailing—somethingtobecorrectedbyan
industrial-strengthdoseofyetmorecritique.Itisatimelyreminder,
however,oftheblurredlinesbetweenthesecularandthesacred,themodern
andthepremodern,andthusofthelimitsofanyvisionofcritiqueas
disruptivenegativity.21
Keyhereisthepotentiallypostsecularrecognitionofthereligiousness,or,asFelskimight
say,theenchantednatureofcritiqueasofallformsofmeaning-making:thecapitulationof
critique’sclaimtoamonopolyonrationalityandacknowledgmentofitsimbricationina
worldofsign-andmeaning-makingthatisinevitablyaplaceofinterpretingandbelieving,
ofgivingandreceivingcredit,ofsacralizingaspectsofhumanexperience.Andyetthe
postcriticalandpostseculardonotalwayscollapseintooneanotherorfullytranslateinto
eachother’sterms.Ifpostcriticalthinkingseeks,inFelski’sterms,“tostrengthenrather
thandiminishitsobject—lessinaspiritofreverencethaninoneofgenerosityand
unabashedcuriosity,”aspostsecularinterlocutorswewouldinvestigatethevarious
valencesof“generosity”and“curiosity”overandagainst“reverence”andexplorewhy
reverenceissomehowlesserthantheothertwoorincompatiblewiththem.22While
generosity,curiosity,andreverenceallseemtospeaktooursenseofreligiousselvesand
personhood,perhapsreverenceismorebasicallyincompatiblewiththeliberal,
autonomousindividualimplicitinthepostcritical,anindividualwho,bytheendofThe
21
LimitsofCritique,seemsunabletooccupyapositionofreverenceorenjoyimmersive
experiencebeyondtheconfinesofanovelormovie.
Awareofthelimitsoftheliberalsubjectandimpressedbythecapacityofnovelsto
encouragedialogueacrossthestoriesthattheytell,wesoughtmodelsofexchangeinour
seminarthatmightworktosimilarends.Theseminarformatwascentraltothiswork,and
weweregratefultoourparticipantsformodellinganopennesstootherperspectives
duringseminardiscussionandinothercontextstoo.Andwewerethankfulfortheinput
providedbyourfourguestspeakers—ColinJager,MistyAnderson,DeidreLynchand
ReginaSchwartz—whichhelpedtopreventourdiscussionsfromgrowingtoosettled.But
inanattempttostructureourseminarinawaythatwouldfurtherextendourcommitment
tothedialogic,wealsoexperimentedwithadifferentwayofhearingaboutparticipants’
individualprojects.Inthesessionssetasideforseminarmemberstolearnabouteach
other’sindividualresearchprojects,participantswerepairedtogetherandaskedtogivea
ten-minuteintroductiontotheotherperson’sworkthatwasbothsummativeand
evaluative.Pre-writtenpapersprovidedthebasisforseminarmemberstopreparethese
introductions,andparticipantssupplementedthiswrittenworkwithone-on-onemeetings
beforethegroupsessions;theassignedpairsreadeachother’sprojectdescriptions,met
togetherface-to-facetotalk,askquestions,andcometoadeeperunderstandingofeach
other’sworkandmotivations,andonlythencraftedtheirpresentationsofeachother’s
projects,followedbyfurtherqueriesandsuggestions.Duringthegroupsessions,seminar
membersdidnottalkabouttheirowntheirworkuntiltheQ&Aperiod,whichmeantthat
theonlyintroductionthatparticipantshadtoanindividual’sworkwasthroughsomeone
else’swords.Shortenedversionsofthepre-writtenpapersweremadeavailable
22
beforehand,buttherewasnoexpectationthatparticipantswouldreadtheseaheadofthe
session.Inusingthismodel,ourhopewasthatitwouldencouragediscussion.Butthe
realitywasmoreprofound,andourshareddialoguewastakentohigherlevelsbyeveryone
beingthrownintoasharedinterpretativeconversation,inwhichone’sownideasbeganin
dialogue,andinasettingwhereideasandpersonswereintermingled.
Participantsconsistentlysingledoutthisformatasuniqueintheiracademic
experiences,and,byturns,extremelychallengingandenlightening.Bytheendofthe
seminar,manyparticipantsfoundthemselvescommentingnotonlyontheimplicationsof
thismodeofexchangebutalsouponotherwaysinwhichthepostsecularapproachofthe
seminarwasleaveningthewholetextureofourconversations.Thepostsecularseemedto
authorizeustospeakinmeaningfulwaysaboutthe“bigquestions”ofloveandanger,
injusticeandretribution,communionandisolation;and,simultaneously,itseemedtolend
atransfiguringandgenerousspirittoourconversations,whichinvolvedawiderangeof
people,fromthosewhoidentifedasreligioustothosewhodidnot.Participantsreflectedso
repeatedlyontheliberatinggoodwilloftheconversationsanditspossiblerelationtothe
seminar’smethodologyandsubjectmatterthatwe’dberemissnottothinkaboutitfurther.
Ourwageristhatparticipants,ourselvesincluded,fromarealrangeofreligiousand
secularidentitiesandverydifferenteducationalbackgroundsandinstitutions,foundthe
postsecularframeworkoftheseminarliberatingbecauseitencouragedustoseeeach
otheraspersonswithgenuinebeliefsandcommitments,andtoextendcompassionforthe
epistemologicalandhumanevulnerabilityofourcondition.Whileitmightbetemptingto
labelthisviewasreligious,wecouldalsodescribeitasabettersortofsecularity—aphrase
generatedbytheparticipantsandechoedacrossthefourweeksasaprimarygoalof
23
postsecularstudies,thegenerationofamoregenuinelypluralsecularitythatassumes
ratherthandownplaysthemultiplereligiouspositionalitesofitsparticipants.Whetherwe
looktowardsabetterformofsecularityorofreligiousbelieforboth,thegoalisto
acknowledge,preserve,andcherishthehumanconditionofseeking,reasoningand
believinginthefaceofuncertainty,overandagainstanyformofcoercion,religiousor
secular.Personhood,communion,community,andconversationremainforusthe
watchwordsofpostsecularthinking—headyidealswithpracticalpedagogicalandscholarly
implications,evenwhen(andpreciselybecause)theyareneverfullyachieved.
Articulatingthegoalofpostsecularityinthiswayrisksadeparturefromthetypical
emphasisofthenovel,which,inthenineteenthcenturyatleast,wasmarkedbya
commitmenttoparticularityratherthanabstractthought.Toguardagainstthisdeparture
andremindourselvesonceagainwhyweteachnovelsratherthanworksofprofessional
philosophy,wewanttoconcludebyforegroundingthoseimportantmomentsinthe
seminarwheredifferentperspectivesrubbedagainstoneanother.Thesemomentswere
notasnotablefortheirconflictastheywerefortheircapacitytosurprise.Thedifferences
inherentinanygenuineconversation,whetherinpersonorviathereadingoftexts,ledto
momentsofinterruption:unexpected,unsettling,revealing,transformative,andsometimes
amusing.OneofthemostmemorableexamplesforusoccurredduringourreadingofJohn
Zizioulas,anOrthodoxChristiantheologian.ForZizioulas,theinterdependentlifeofthe
triuneGodmodelsawayofunderstandinghumanpersonhoodthatisverydifferentfrom
thosemodelsofpersonhoodinWesternthoughtwhichthinkprimarilyintermsof
individualontology.WritinginCommunionandOtherness(2006),Zizioulasexplains:“Both
inthecaseofGodandinthatofhumanbeingstheidentityofapersonisrecognizedand
24
positedclearlyandunequivocally,butthisissoonlyinandthrougharelationship,andnot
throughanobjectiveontologyinwhichthisidentitywouldbeisolated,pointedatand
describedinitself.”23Zizioulas’sunderstandingofpersonhoodisrootedstronglyinthe
detailsofOrthodoxtheology,andwhilesomeofuswerehappytorehearseandporeover
long-standingpointsofdoctrinalelaboration,otherswerebemusedabouttheneedfor
suchextendedtheologicalwork,evenastheyweremovedbythebeautyofZizioulas’s
thought.Commontoallwasanawarenessthatalthoughtheologicalideasdonotalways
translateeasilyintothethinkingofthosewhoremainunsureaboutsuchChristianbeliefs,
theycannonethelessresultininsightsasinvigoratingastheyarestrange.Asoneofour
participantsputit,“Idon’tknowwhetherIshouldbeassigningthistoallmystudentsor
gettingthehellawayfromit.”Hisquestionisanimportantone,referencingrealfears,
longings,andrisks,andwespentsometimetalkingaboutittogether.Butevenmore
importantforusisthewaythatthecommentexemplifiesthecapacityofthepostsecularto
makeforsurprisedandsurprisingbedfellows,sustainingthestrangesortofconversations
thatweareusedtoreadingaboutinnovelsbutlessusedtoexperiencinginthecourseof
ourliteraryscholarship.
________
Thehappycodasthatwefrequentlyfindinthenineteenth-centurynovelcansometimesbe
readasunnecessaryafterthoughts.Whiletheremaybesometruthtothatjudgment,what
followscouldnotbemoredifferent,aswefinishbyacknowledingthescholarswehadthe
honorandjoyofconversingwithoverthecourseofourseminar.Thisarticleandour
ongoingthinkingaboutthepostsecularwouldbeimpossiblewithoutthem,andweendby
recordingourconsiderablegratitudeto:ChristineColón(WheatonCollege,IL),Dwight
25
Codr(UniversityofConnecticut),SeanDempsey(UniversityofArkansas),JeffreyGalbraith
(WheatonCollege,IL),StephanieHershinow(BaruchCollege),CheriLarsenHoeckley
(WestmontCollege),JoanneJanssen(BakerUniversity),JessicaLing(UCBerkeley),Lauren
Matz(St.BonaventureUniversity),HaeinPark(BiolaUniversity),IoanaPatuleanu(Mercer
CountyCommunityCollege),ArianaReilly(UtahValleyUniversity),KevinSeidel(Eastern
MennoniteUniversity),WinterJadeWerner(WheatonCollege,MA),JohnWiehl(Case
WesternReserveUniversity),AndrewWilliams(ourseminarcoordinator,Universityof
Iowa),andMimiWinick(RutgersUniversity).Forbriefvideopresentationsoftheir
projectsandmaterialsrelatedtotheseminar,seehttps://uiowa.edu/postsecular-novel/.
26
Notes
1MargaretAnneDoody’sTheTrueStoryoftheNovelmightbeseenasthemostobvious
exception,withitsinterestinthefemininespiritualityofancientnovels.ButDoody’swork
sustainsalevelofsuspiciontowardsaspectsoftheChristiantradition,fromthedeclaration
that“itwouldbeaverybadthing,anddisastrousfortheappreciationoftheNovelasa
form,ifthisunderstandingofitsreligiousoriginsandnatureleftusstarringblanklyataset
oftracts”(170)tothemoreimplicitideasinformingherassurancethat“[t]he‘religion’of
thenovelsisrelatednottoasetofrulesbuttotheunderstandingofalifelived
hermeneutically,thatisassomethingwithmeaningforindividuals”(171).Weshare
Doody’sreservationsaboutarules-basedreadingofreligionbutwedonotthinkthatthis
hastoexcludethetheologyandpracticeofChristianbelievers.
2Taylor,ASecularAge,29.
3Derrida,“FaithandKnowledge,”2.
4Ibid.,21,33.
5Ibid.,18.
6Levine,Realism,EthicsandSecularism,213.
7Dickens,LittleDorrit,859-60.
8Ibid.,859.
9Defoe,RobinsonCrusoe,184.
10Ibid.,184.
11Ibid.,186.
12Felch&Contino,BakhtinandReligion,16.
13Bakhtin,TheDialogicImagination,300.
27
14Jameson,“TheExperimentsofTime,”102.
15Latour,“WhyHasCritiqueRunoutofSteam?,”225.
16Ibid.,239.
17OtheralternativesincludethereparativereadingofEveKosofskySedgwick,the
hermeneuticsoflovefavouredbyAlanJacobs,thedistantreadingofFrancoMorretti,the
uncriticalreadingcalledforbyMichaelWarner,andthedescriptivereadingproposedby
HeatherLove.
18Felski,TheLimitsofCritique,190.
19Ibid.,65.
20SeeLoriBranch,“TheRitualsofOurRe-Secularization:LiteratureBetweenFaithand
Knowledge.”
21Felski,TheLimitsofCritique,134.
22Ibid.,182.
23Zizioulas,CommunionandOtherness,112.
28
Bibliography
Anderson,Amanda.ThePowersofDistance:CosmopolitanismandtheCultivationof
Detachment.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2001.
Asad,Talal.FormationsoftheSecular:Christianity,Islam,Modernity.Stanford,CA:Stanford
UniversityPress,2003.
Bakhtin,Mikhail.TheDialogicImagination:FourEssays.Trans.CarylEmersonandMichael
Holquist.Austin,TX:UniversityofTexasPress,1981.
Best,StephenandSharonMarcus.“SurfaceReading:AnIntroduction.”Representations
108.1(2009):1-21.
Blond,Philip,ed.Post-SecularPhilosophy:BetweenPhilosophyandTheology.London:
Routledge,1998.
Branch,Lori.“TheRitualsofOurResecularization:LiteratureBetweenFaithand
Knowledge.”ReligionandLiterature46.2-3(2014):9-33.
Defoe,Daniel.RobinsonCrusoe.Ed.ThomasKeymer.Oxford:OxfordWorld’sClassics,2007.
Derrida,Jacques.“Différance.”InSpeechandPhenomenaandOtherEssaysonHusserl’s
TheoryofSigns.Trans.DavidB.AllisonandNewtonGarver.Evanston,IL:
NorthwesternUniversityPress,1973.129–60.
-----.“FaithandKnowledge:TwoSourcesofReligionattheLimitsofReasonAlone.”In
Religion,eds.JacquesDerridaandGianniVattimo.Stanford:StanfordUniversity
Press,1998.1–78.(ReprintedInActsofReligion.Ed.GilAnidjar.NewYork:
Routledge,2002.)
Dickens,Charles.LittleDorrit.Ed.StephenWallandHelenSmall.NewYork:Penguin
Classics,2003.
29
Doody,MargaretAnne.TheTrueStoryoftheNovel.Brunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversity
Press,1996.
Felch,SusanM.&PaulJ.Contino,eds.BakhtinandReligion:AFeelingforFaith.Evanston,Il:
NorthwesternUniversityPress,2001.
Felski,Rita.TheLimitsofCritique.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2015.
Habermas,Jürgen.“NotesonaPost-SecularSociety.”NewPerspectivesQuarterly25(2008):
17-29.
Jacobs,Alan.ATheologyofReading:TheHermeneuticsofLove.Cambridge,MA:Westview
Press,2001.
Jameson,Frederic.“TheExperimentsofTime:ProvidenceandRealism.”InFrancoMorretti,
TheNovelVol.2.NewJersey:PrincetonUniversityPress,2006.95-127.
Latour,Bruno.“WhyHasCritiqueRunoutofSteam?FromMattersofFacttoMattersof
Concern.”CriticalInquiry30.2(2004):225-48.
Levine,George.Realism,EthicsandSecularism:EssaysonVictorianLiteratureandScience.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2008.
Love,Heather.“ClosebutnotDeep:LiteraryEthicsandtheDescriptiveTurn.”NewLiterary
History41.2(2010):371-91
MacDonald,George.Phantastes.EdNickPage.MiltonKeynes:Paternoster,2008.
McClure,John.PartialFaiths:PostsecularFictionintheAgeofPynchonandMorrison.
Athens,GA:UniversityofGeorgiaPress,2007.
Moretti,Franco.DistantReading.London:Verso,2013.
Sedgwick,EveKosofsky.NovelGazing:QueerReadingsinFiction.Durham,NC:Duke
UniversityPress,1997.
30
Taylor,Charles.ASecularAge.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2007.
Warner,Michael.“UncriticalReading.”InJaneGallop,ed.Polemic:CriticalorUncritical.New
York:Routledge,2004.13-38.
Watt,Ian,TheRiseoftheNovel:StudiesinDefoe,Richardson,andFielding.Berkeley:
UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1957.
Zizioulas,John.CommunionandOtherness:FurtherStudiesinPersonhoodandtheChurch.
London:T&TClark,2006.